Although the nuts and bolts of what I do involves e-discovery / e-disclosure rules and the crossover between rules and practice on the one hand and technology on the other, my real interest lies in marketing, with a self imposed brief to market the concepts and benefits of ediscovery / e-disclosure as well as those who provide services. My biggest article in the last few days (see Twitter, bribery and 37 corporate counsel in a virtual bar ) has been about that rather than about either rules or technology.
I have always had a soft spot for the blog maintained by forensics experts CY4OR because they provide automatic links to my own blog posts. They never sought my permission to do this, nor did I ask them to, but I certainly don’t complain at this unsolicited outlet for what I write.
I have had no cause to look there recently, but a couple of recent tweets have taken me to CY4OR sites – it would be interesting, would it not, to get them to track how many of the visits to their sites came from those tweets?
The first tweet took me to CY4OR’s new e-disclosure site which shows how far CY4OR has moved from its roots as a pure forensic expert. It has partnerships with Clearwell and Nuix to add a processing capability to the stage which follows the collection. I am obviously interested in the mere fact of those partnerships, since both Nuix and Clearwell are sponsors of the e-Disclosure Information Project.
My other interest, however, lies in how well a web site guides a potential client through the range of services on offer – the alliances of skills and partnerships make perfect sense to those familiar with what these products do and how they fit into the process, but it is not so easy for those coming new to e-disclosure. I judge a web site by the ease with which an e-disclosure virgin could find out what services are on offer and how a provider can help.
It interesting, incidentally, that e-discovery companies with their roots in forensics seem to do better websites than others – you might look also at the good-looking 7Safe site which offers processing from Nuix (again), document review from Relativity, audio searching from Nexidia and paralegal support from i-Lit Paralegals. There is also a connection with Venio Systems which I have arranged to find out more about at LegalTech.
The second pointer to CY4OR, which again popped up in a tweet, was to a case study involving a laptop which was stolen and recovered. Significant regulatory implications followed from the question whether the data had been compromised. Since the client was a financial institution, I assume that “compromised” need mean merely “looked at”. In forensics terms, this is not, I suspect, a particularly difficult thing to establish – once you have won the instructions. The significance of the case study, in my terms, is not that CY4OR saved their client up to £490,000 (the maximum cost downside minus the actual cost to client) but that they won the work in the first place.
Four or five years ago, it would have been enough to establish an attractive web presence with good SEO (search engine optimisation) to try and improve the chances of a site appearing in Google searches. These days, as my Twitter article makes clear, more active steps are needed to drive traffic to a website and to capitalise on its appearance and content. It will be interesting to see how CY4OR tackles this next stage in their marketing development.